On 2/15/07, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 15, 2007, at 1:02 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> >
> > if you don't like the process, propose a patch :-)
> >
>
> The sad fact is that there is a clear disconnect between
> some of the docs and "normal" practice. This was clear
> back with the whole CeltixFire fiasco ;)
the only way to move forward is to fix the documentation. over time,
procedures tends to adhere to the documentation.
> My point has always been that by making it easier to
> "bypass" the Incubator, it leads us back closer to
> the situation that the Incubator was 1st created to
> fix...
>
> Lazy consensus is a great way to continue progress
> without being "hampered" by others being busy or
> unavailable. It's good for code patches, etc...
> It should not be good for things which are core
> to our legal issues (like software releases or
> IP clearance).
for software releases, it's possible (though time consuming) to
independently verify that release is reasonable (by check the licenses
are in place and that policy is being followed).
for IP clearance, i don't see how the IPMC is able to do anything
other than just check the documentation: a pure paper exercise. we
have no choice to trust that the PMC has read, understood and followed
the instructions.
whilst this remains the case, i'm not sure what would be gained by
actively voting.
if this isn't good enough then a different process is needed
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org